San Marco SIC Marino GP: Prediction, Practice, Qual - WARNING THIS THREAD MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS, WHO

[Jumkie]

Yes and this is the part that confuses me about you opinion of this race



Then you go on to imply Rossi had an advantage due to the testing they had there prior to the race. So which is it, testing advantage to get a great set up or riders not entering or finishing the race? Look at the lap times, that should give you a clue.



You have to be in it to win it compa !

Both. I'm saying riders MIA coupled, with unique happenstance where weather eliminated precious set-up time which hindered everybody except VR, given the dumb luck of a resent test, resulted in a misleading outcome. That is the facade of his result in my opinion, its not a judgement about VR, just a plausible explanation as to why the Duc appeared uncharacteristically ahead of bikes that normally are better despite having inferior riders. Its this facade that Goaty and Migs are desperate to cling to and Tom missed the explanation of this point of this "circumstance" by a light year.



If we have a dry Aragon, where all the usual suspects have all the available practice time, and VR finishes ahead of the Sat Hondas & Yamahas, then we can start giving Ducati Valentino some credit for improvement. (Why kid ourselves, when VR fails its Ducs fault, when Duc succeeds it was all VR).

 

[Goatboy]

Oooh I think his core has gone critical

 

[Jumkie]

[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

It is a shame bird man, but the fact of the matter is that if that does happen 46 will still get the accolades. Flip side to that coin is that in some strange way it will be due to him, cause they sure as hell weren't changing much for any other Ducati rider.

[/background][/font]

It won't be due to rossi and jb in a strange way, it will be significantly due to them period. They said the previous chassis design was not competitive or tweakable to be so, and insisted ducati had to go aluminium twin spar. The money available because rossi was there also I would think helped ducati disprove the other design, as they did exhaustively, and switch to the new one. What will also be disproved though is the blame given to stoner for not "developing" the bike while he was there; even apart from the resources available when he was there and whether they were listening to him, or even whether he can develop in general, the 2010 bike and its successors was simply not developable.

Mike, I Disagree. (Btw, great take Digger) Anyway, Mike, there was significant improvement for riders other than Stoner on the previous chassisless GP10, which was evidence by string of true dry weather 4th places by Nicky, in addition, despite the "improvements" it still allowed wins by Stoner, and the odd competitive results by the Sat bikes with "lesser" riders. (Hahah, JB's epic foot in mouth still cracks me up). Stoner handed JB/VR a wining podium machine, and it went backward from day one in a hurry. Well after 6 months of blaming results on a bum shoulder, the "real" work of evaluating the bike started (that left for a very short term). In very short order, they decided the bike design was flawed, and in the next 6 months decided to scrap the winning/podium/top 5 potential bike for one that is consistently at the tail end of the "prototypes". If we are still going to cling to this idea of VR/JB development magic, then what does the evidence of results indicate? VR's results use to get analyzed to the Nth degree by the boppers who declared, well clearly the Goat is hampered by the horrible bike, but this last event, VR finishes 2nd, and analysis goes out the window?... haha. Duc have been making improvements, make no mistake, but so have the Japanese. Not to mention, VR has had more time on the bike. Anyway, I'm getting on a tangent, back to your point, I further disagree that JB/VR helped disprove the previous design, as the engine rules disallowed Duc to make more numerous changes given their design. Exactly how is this JB/VR's great revelation, if the rules inhibited Duc from continuing to improve their unique design? This particular point has been lost with the Povs and Birdmans of the world, the idea that arbitrary rules dictate away from true "prototype" machines, as you may remember they expressed disgust with CRTs (and Pov infamously announced his toothless boycott). What VR should have done, was used his considerable influence to have Dorna announce a special dispensation and suspend the engine rule. This way Ducati could have significantly tried new solutions unhampered by an arbitrary rule. So no, I'm not convinced JB/VR disproved anything regarding the GP10 design, much less doing so "exhaustively." I do think that after his shoulder healed up both physically and mentally, that the chassisless design was to be ejected into the annals of the universe for something more familiar to him (though you will have a hard time getting some to admit Duc actually did anything for him). If you want to call that "disproving" something "exhaustively", then I would have to respectfully disagree.







[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]

Inherently flawed, which only Preziosi can take the blame for.

Mike, see what I mean? I can't compete with this level of delusion. And your err on the side of giving the boppers diplomatic concession, just serves to embolden the frenzy of crazy.

[/background][/font]

 

[Zootalaws]

Especially as Lorenzo is down to what.... One last fresh engine? The elephant in the room.

Really? That is an elephant as big as the chip on chopperman's shoulder...



I have been looking for the engine stats for this season - they were all over the place last year, but I haven't been able to track them down - got a link?

 

[Zootalaws]

...there was significant improvement for riders other than Stoner on the previous chassisless GP10, which was evidence by string of true dry weather 4th places by Nicky, in addition, despite the "improvements" it still allowed wins by Stoner, and the odd competitive results by the Sat bikes with "lesser" riders. (Hahah, JB's epic foot in mouth still cracks me up). Stoner handed VR a wining podium machine, and it went backward from day one in a hurry. Well after 6 months of blaming results on a bum shoulder, the "real" work of evaluating the bike started. In very short order, they decided the bike design was flawed, and in the next 6 months decided to scrap the winning/podium/top 5 potential bike for one that is consistently at the tail end of the "prototypes".

Both Rossi and Burgess have stated that they don't know how Stoner rode that thing to wins and podiums. It's fairly clear, Stoner can ride a bad bike, well. Rossi can ride a good bike well.



That is probably the same for most of the field - give them a decent ride, they will deliver decent results. Rossi and Burgess looking at Stoner's results could conclude that the bike was a decent ride, needed some fettling. That wasn't the case.

 

[michaelm]

Mike, I Disagree. (Btw, great take Digger) Anyway, Mike, there was significant improvement for riders other than Stoner on the previous chassisless GP10, which was evidence by string of true dry weather 4th places by Nicky, in addition, despite the "improvements" it still allowed wins by Stoner, and the odd competitive results by the Sat bikes with "lesser" riders. (Hahah, JB's epic foot in mouth still cracks me up). Stoner handed VR a wining podium machine, and it went backward from day one in a hurry. Well after 6 months of blaming results on a bum shoulder, the "real" work of evaluating the bike started. In very short order, they decided the bike design was flawed, and in the next 6 months decided to scrap the winning/podium/top 5 potential bike for one that is consistently at the tail end of the "prototypes". If we are still going to cling to this idea of VR/JB development magic, then what does the evidence of results indicate? VR's results use to get analyzed to the Nth degree by the boppers who declared, well clearly the Goat is hampered by the horrible bike, but this last event, VR finishes 2nd, and analysis goes out the window haha. Duc have been making improvements, make no mistake, but so have the Japanese. Anyway, I'm getting on a tangent, back to your point, I further disagree that VR helped disprove the previous design, as the engine rules disallowed Duc to make numerous changes given their design. Exactly how is this VR's great revelation, if the rules inhibited Duc from continuing to improve their unique design? This particular point has been lost with the Povs and Birdmans of the world, the idea that arbitrary rules dictate away from true "prototype" machines, as you may remember they expressed disgust with CRTs (and Pov infamously announced his toothless boycott). What VR should have done, was used his considerable influence to have Dorna announce a special dispensation and suspend the engine rule. This way Ducati could have significantly tried new solutions unhampered by an arbitrary rule. So no, I'm not convinced VR disproved anything regarding the GP10 design, much less doing so "exhaustively." I do think that after his shoulder healed up both physically and mentally, that the chassisless design was to be ejected into the annals of the universe for something more familiar to him (though you will have a hard time getting some to admit Duc actually did anything for him). If you want to call that "disproving" something "exhaustively", then I would have to respectfully disagree.











[font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif'][background=rgb(255,255,255)]Mike, see what I mean? I can't compete with this level of delusion. And your err on the side of giving the boppers diplomatic concession, just serves to embolden the frenzy of crazy.

[/background][/font]

I am not being diplomatic, it would seem we actually disagree about the gp10 and gp11 ducati. I think both were pigs, and while I think nicky did better than stoner in improving the gp10 and better than rossi in improving the gp11, i don't think even he was capable of developing it into a consistent race winner. Stoner at the end of 2010 after adopting some of nicky's settings basically went win it or bin it , but still had a near 50% dnf rate mixed in with the late season wins. Whether if they hadn't tried to make the gp10 more "rideable" and stuck with developing the gp09 which suited stoner fine in stoner's direction the bike could have been consistent for him is another question, but I don't believe it would have suited any other current rider.



There have obviously been several previous false dawns with the 2011 and 2012 ducatis, and I agree the jury is out until the form is repeated with a full field, but it is apparently so that only rossi had the "new" bike and hayden found it to be an improvement when he tried on the monday post race, so I think at this stage it can't be definitely said there hasn't been any improvement either, if only from 7th to fourth with a full field as j4rno says, although this was its first race. I thought rossi's bike (and rossi) looked pretty good in the race.



I do take your point that the loss of a full day's practice may have prevented the 1 second or more improvement that the hondas and yamahas usually make over the course of practice and qualifying which the ducatis haven't done this year.

 

[Jumkie]

Both Rossi and Burgess have stated that they don't know how Stoner rode that thing to wins and podiums. It's fairly clear, Stoner can ride a bad bike, well. Rossi can ride a good bike well.

Ah yes, a complete reversal on what they had previously stated. This was finally conceded, but not after a good while, first the shoulder had to heal completely, then they evaluated the machine. Tried some changes but were significantly restricted by a stupid engine rule. My point to Mike was that this hardly proves the design was flawed. HRC reportedly brought out 30 chassis for Pedro once, does that mean the twin spar chassis design was "flawed"? No quite right? Just needs to continue being developed to find better performance. That was one of my points I was trying to make.

That is probably the same for most of the field - give them a decent ride, they will deliver decent results. Rossi and Burgess looking at Stoner's results could conclude that the bike was a decent ride, needed some fettling. That wasn't the case.

Perhaps true for us spectators, but these guys were revered and given legend status for their supreme knowledge and skill to discern these specific issues.

 

[Jumkie]

I am not being diplomatic, it would seem we actually disagree about the gp10 and gp11 ducati. I think both were pigs, and while I think nicky did better than stoner in improving the gp10 and better than rossi in improving the gp11, i don't think even he was capable of developing it into a consistent race winner.

No, we agree, they were "pigs" but not to the same level as they became in 2011 and 12. That is, it went backwards.

Stoner at the end of 2010 after adopting some of nicky's settings basically went win it or bin it , but still had a near 50% dnf rate mixed in with the late season wins. Whether if they hadn't tried to make the gp10 more "rideable" and stuck with developing the gp09 which suited stoner fine in stoner's direction the bike could have been consistent for him is another question, but I don't believe it would have suited any other current rider.

Yes, but again, there is a significant difference between a bike capable of top fives on any given race, and a sure thing last place (don't let the 6 to 8 place finishing order fool you, the CRTs are there for illusion only).

There have obviously been several previous false dawns with the 2011 and 2012 ducatis, and I agree the jury is out until the form is repeated with a full field, but it is apparently so that only rossi had the "new" bike and hayden found it to be an improvement when he tried on the monday post race, so I think at this stage it can't be definitely said there hasn't been any improvement either, if only from 7th to fourth with a full field as j4rno says, although this was its first race. I thought rossi's bike (and rossi) looked pretty good in the race.



I do take your point that the loss of a full day's practice may have prevented the 1 second or more improvement that the hondas and yamahas usually make over the course of practice and qualifying which the ducatis haven't done this year.

We will see soon enough.

 

[Zootalaws]

Perhaps true for us spectators, but these guys were revered and given legend status for their supreme knowledge and skill to discern these specific issues.

I think that is the public view, not the view of the teams - don't forget, these riders and crews spend year-in, year-out with each other. They socialise, eat, party together as well as meet at specific FIM/IRTA/Dorna sessions.



They know each other very well and know each other's capabilities. Sure there is always a bit of mystique around the top crew and rider, but there are a lot of hot engineers and mechanics and electronics specialists in GP.



Neither Rossi nor Burgess would have been hired by Ducati without a lot of meetings and technical discussions.



I don't know that Ducati would have been over-awed by Rossi and Burgess, they would have seen a winning team that has its' .... together, engineering feedback-wise.



I don't belong to the school that accords riders engineering brilliance - they ride. The engineers get the feedback from the rider via the crew chief - that is the area Rossi and JB excel - a keen understanding of what each other is talking about and in JBs case, the ability to frame that in a form the R&D engineers back at the factory need.

 

[Goatboy]

Mike, see what I mean? I can't compete with this level of delusion. And your err on the side of giving the boppers diplomatic concession, just serves to embolden the frenzy of crazy.

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

So you're saying that the Duc exhibiting front end problems since at least 2008 is a delusion?



I understand Jum, like I said, you're conflicted. You want to be ecstatic that Pedrosa got some proper 2006 "karma", but you're hurting so much because the final thread of your argument that Hayden is top Ducati has been snipped. I understand my Mexican friend, there there.

 

[Zootalaws]

Stoner at the end of 2010 after adopting some of nicky's settings

Got any evidence of this? I've looked and I can't find anything that categorically states Stoner used Hayden's set-ups. I know Hayden stated that he couldn't ride the bike at all with Stoner's settings, so it looks like they were swapping/testing set-ups to find one that worked.



But your post indicates that Stoner was using Hayden as a yardstick - I don't think that is the case at all. In a well-balanced team with two riders that accept and respect each other, it only makes sense to try the other guys settings, just in case you are missing something.

 

[hawkdriver]

Ah yes, a complete reversal on what they had previously stated. This was finally conceded, but not after a good while, first the shoulder had to heal completely, then they evaluated the machine. Tried some changes but were significantly restricted by a stupid engine rule. My point to Mike was that this hardly proves the design was flawed. HRC reportedly brought out 30 chassis for Pedro once, does that mean the twin spar chassis design was "flawed"? No quite right? Just needs to continue being developed to find better performance. That was one of my points I was trying to make.







Perhaps true for us spectators, but these guys were revered and given legend status for their supreme knowledge and skill to discern these specific issues.

They didn't abandon the mono frame because it was ...., they abandoned it because it didn't give them the ability to easily move things around without having to modify the engine. Don't you think it's easier to be able to move the engine a few mm's without needing major chassis and engine mods. Every time Rossi ran out of adjustment on the bike they should have had the next chassis ready moving in the direction of adjustment needed. Instead they told him to ride it like Nicky, wrong answer as he has proven, if they would have just made the parts sooner they could be so much further ahead. I don't think they made a huge step in terms of lap time, but the bike didn't look like it was fighting back for a change and that's gonna be huge to the confidence of any rider. I would say that may even make things move faster now as taking it to the limit won't be an act of death and courage for these world class riders.

 

[hawkdriver]

I think the rider is extremely important in development

Nicky- was happy to use a setting that let him ride at a limit that produced mediocre results, look at what he told Spies.

Rossi- constantly asking for more from the front end and balance of the bike and had to throw Ducati under the bus after appeasing them and riding with Nicky's settings to get the same .... race results. How many times did we see him with a bike that looked goofy as .... with the front end jacked sky high and talking about finding a setting instead of settling for what the bike could do.

JB and Rossi shouldn't of had to throw Duc under the bus to get a chassis, when you have champions on your bike and they ask for changes you need to do it and put the ego away. Honda is the perfect example of how you do it, Pedro is on his third personal chassis and his performance has been improving.

 

[Goatboy]

Worth remembering that they are as of yesterday onto their third iteration of the requested swing arm. Washout tests have contributed to the length of time, but still with 6 races to go it seems a long time coming. I'm reading that they will have another new chassis for Valencia, which is what? The second this year(?), floundering for ideas, floundering for resources, or floundering on meaningful feedback?



Most impressive is how they are still willing to work on testing with this fraud of a development rider & his ridiculous crew chief. You would have thought that by now, with their departure they would have been locked out, being so useless & all.

 

[Jumkie]

U guys make some good points, and some i dont agree with, but anyway, Duc was surely a complex question. I find it interesting how the perspective among various fans regarding Duc design has changed when they hired VR. When Casey was crashing on it, most were sure it was his fault, while none credence was giving to the minority voice, now we are suppose to believe the popular opinion again, that its all Ducs fault and any improvement must be credit to VR. Here is another thing to consider. Now throw in the fact Duc couldnt work with a tire to accommodate their true 'prototype' design.

 

[digger]

U guys make some good points, and some i dont agree with, but anyway, Duc was surely a complex question. I find it interesting how the perspective among various fans regarding Duc design has changed when they hired VR. When Casey was crashing on it, most were sure it was his fault, while none credence was giving to the minority voice, now we are suppose to believe the popular opinion again, that its all Ducs fault and any improvement must be credit to VR. Here is another thing to consider. Now throw in the fact Duc couldnt work with a tire to accommodate their true 'prototype' design.

I might be wrong mate, but I don't think anyone has said that VR's improved result was due to him this weekend. Most people seem to be saying its the bike that has finally changed for the better.



Whether that is correct remains to be seen.

 

[Jumkie]

Worth remembering that they are as of yesterday onto their third iteration of the requested swing arm. Washout tests have contributed to the length of time, but still with 6 races to go it seems a long time coming. I'm reading that they will have another new chassis for Valencia, which is what? The second this year(?), floundering for ideas, floundering for resources, or floundering on meaningful feedback?



Most impressive is how they are still willing to work on testing with this fraud of a development rider & his ridiculous crew chief. You would have thought that by now, with their departure they would have been locked out, being so useless & all.

No doubt about it, JB/VR have proven useless. Its made the boppers have to rationalize and readjust every previously held myth regarding the "goat" and his legendary development status. Regardless of the radical changes, and evidence to the contrary, the full blame remains on Duc. Funny how the reverse never applies when talking about his inflated titles on the "best" everything.



Regarding the tests. Newsflash, these tests were scheduled in advance. Perhaps during a time where VR strung along Duc, buying his personal agent Carmelo time to broker a deal with a Japanese factory. It worked. These parts were in the pipeline already genius. Contrary to what u boppers demand, Duc cant .... new parts every time VR comes last of the prototypes, as he made this season quite the habit. Duc like most his fans still are under the spell of the koolaid. Tey are a bit like the whore who gets ..... slapped by their pimp. They are a blind to the fact all VR/JBs development has been one big pile of ..... But hey, he podiumed last weekend. So with all those new parts and confidence, i fully expect VR to win Aragon. Commence rain dance now.

 

[#22]

Jesus christ guys, how do you find so much time to write essay after essay on here about things that really don't matter? Can I have your jobs please or are ya'll unemployed?

 

[Nuts]

I am not being diplomatic, it would seem we actually disagree about the gp10 and gp11 ducati. I think both were pigs, and while I think nicky did better than stoner in improving the gp10 and better than rossi in improving the gp11, i don't think even he was capable of developing it into a consistent race winner. Stoner at the end of 2010 after adopting some of nicky's settings basically went win it or bin it , but still had a near 50% dnf rate mixed in with the late season wins. Whether if they hadn't tried to make the gp10 more "rideable" and stuck with developing the gp09 which suited stoner fine in stoner's direction the bike could have been consistent for him is another question, but I don't believe it would have suited any other current rider.

Don't think your assessment of the GP10 (or Stoner) is correct.

Based on the second half of the season....



9. Laguna Seca - Stoner 2nd

10. Brno - Stoner 3rd

11. Indy - Stoner DNF

12. Misano - Stoner 5th

13. Aragon - Stoner 1st

14. Motegi - Stoner 1st

15. Malaysia - Stoner DNF

16. Phillip Is - Stoner 1st

17. Estoril - Stoner DNF

18. Valencia - Stoner 2nd



So....

3/9 DNF (long way short of 50% Michael)

3/9 pole starts

6/9 on the podium

3/9 wins.

I bet these results look better than Gresini or Tech 3 for the last two years, but are the sat Yamaha and Honda bikes .... ????

The 2010 Ducati was a lot better at the end of 2010 than most people will admit.



And, as far as I understand, Duc did not ditch the carbon swing arm due to lack of adjustability, they ditched it because no one could make the bike work, and logical explanation was that the integral engine / CF swing arm did not provide the correct amount of flex and stiffness.

Duc went to a twin spar alum frame because Yamaha and Honda made that arrangement work. I think a big part of the change from the GP9 to the GP10 was dictated by the change in tyres.

 

[birdman]

I think the rider is extremely important in development

Nicky- was happy to use a setting that let him ride at a limit that produced mediocre results, look at what he told Spies.

Rossi- constantly asking for more from the front end and balance of the bike and had to throw Ducati under the bus after appeasing them and riding with Nicky's settings to get the same .... race results. How many times did we see him with a bike that looked goofy as .... with the front end jacked sky high and talking about finding a setting instead of settling for what the bike could do.

JB and Rossi shouldn't of had to throw Duc under the bus to get a chassis, when you have champions on your bike and they ask for changes you need to do it and put the ego away. Honda is the perfect example of how you do it, Pedro is on his third personal chassis and his performance has been improving.

Dont agree. Spoilt prima donna. Go have a talk with Kenny Roberts, Eddie Lawson, Kevin Schwantz, Wayne Rainey, Mick Doohan, Nicky Hayden, Casey Stoner, Randy DePuniet (on current CRT crap), and many more all with the same moto - namely "this is what I got to race with so .... it lets race!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not, booo hooo hooo my bikes not so good I dont wanna race - Max Biaggi philosophy for many years much ridiculed by none other than............... Valentino Rossi (cue ironic snigger from the 'grid fillers').